Diversity Growth, Cultural Competence, and Management: A Focus on the U.S. and North Carolina Walter...

Diversity Growth, Cultural Competence, and

Management:A Focus on the U.S. and North Carolina

Diversity Growth, Cultural Competence, and

Management:A Focus on the U.S. and North Carolina

Walter C. Farrell, Jr.Professor of Management, School of Social Work

Associate Director, Urban Investment Strategies CenterThe Frank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise

.University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3440

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Walter C. Farrell, Jr.

GUIDING QUESTIONS Why should social workers and other human service

providers be concerned about diversity?

What is the nexus of diversity issues about which human service professionals need to be concerned?

How should human service professionals go about designing practice strategies for diverse populations?

What are the potential organizational consequences of failing to effectively address a diverse client population?


Diversity Imperatives

Demographic

Social

Legal

Effective Customer/Client Service


DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS1992-2050

Over the next 60 years, the U.S. will experience continued population growth, not ZPG, as previously assumed.

Over the next 60 years, the cumulative effects of immigration will be more important than births to people already living there.

Illegal and legal immigration combined will increase the U.S. population by an average of 880,000 a year for the next six decades. However, the annual increase could be as high as 1.4 million.

200,000 illegal immigrants will arrive each years over the next 60 years, twice the number assumed in a 1988 government report.


DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS1992-2050 (Cont’d)

By 2050, the U.S. population will include 82 million people who arrived in the country after 1991 or who were born to people who did. This group of immigrants and their children will account for 21% of the U.S. population in 2050.

Childbearing rates for black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American women will continue to be higher than for white women.

The population will continue to age over the next 60 years. Currently, the median age of the U.S. population in 33, the highest in the nation’s history. Census Bureau estimates that the median age will rise to 39 in the year 2035 and will remain at the level for 15 years.

Whites will account for a declining share of the U.S. population. The non-Hispanic segment of the white population is projected to stop growing by 2029, peaking at 208 million.


DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS1992-2050 (Cont’d)

Black population will nearly double in 60 years, from 32 million today to 62 million in 2050. The Native American (American Indian) population will also double.

Asian-American population will double by 2009, triple by 2024, and quadruple by 2038. Overall, the Asian-American population will increase from 8 million today to 41 million in 2050.

Hispanic-Americans will account for more than 40 percent of all population growth in the next 60 years. The Hispanic population will increase from 24 million today to 81 million in 2050.


THE 30 MOST DIVERSE COUNTIES IN THE UNITED STATES

Rank, County, State Rank, County, State

1 San Francisco, California 16 Hoke, North Carolina2 Manhattan Borough (NYC), New York 17 Suffolk (Boston), Massachusetts3 Bronx Borough (NYC), New York 18 Pinal, Arizona4 Los Angeles, California 19 Fort Bend, Texas5 Brooklyn Borough (NYC), New York 20 Valencia, New Mexico6 Robeson, North Carolina 21 District of Columbia7 Rio Arriba, New Mexico 22 Sandoval, New Mexico8 Queens Borough (NYC), New York 23 Hudson (Jersey City), New Jersey9 Alameda (Oakland), California 24 Taos, New Mexico

10 Essex (Newark), New Jersey 25 Cook (Chicago), Illinois11 Aleutian Islands, Alaska 26 Harris (Houston), Texas12 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 27 Graham, Arizona13 Dade (Miami), Florida 28 Socorro, New Mexico14 Caldwell, Texas 29 Coconino, Arizona15 Monterey, California 30 Chattahoochee, Georgia

Source, Allen and Turner (1990)


The New Melting Pot

State Growth1. North Carolina 73%2. Nevada 60%3. Kansas 54%4. Indiana 50%5. Minnesota 43%6. Virginia 40%7. Maryland 39%8. Arizona 35%9. Utah 31%10. Oregon 26%

Ranked by percentage increase of immigrants from 1995 to 2000*

*For states with a foreign-born population of at least 50,000 in 1995Source: Urban Institute


U.S Population Change by Region and Race/ethnicity, July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000

All Regions

Race/Ethnicity Absolute Change

Percent Change

TOTAL 23,226,417 9.3

White 7,453,844 4.0

Black 4,232,972 14.1

American Indian/Alaskan Native

322,045 14.3

Asian & Pacific Islander

3,256,201 42.1

Hispanic 8,765,715 38.5



Northeast


Percent Change

TOTAL 954,325 2.0

White -1,013,038 -2.5

Black 445,381 8.5


23,833 18.1


689,309 50.0

Hispanic 1,000,684 26.3



Midwest


Percent Change

TOTAL 3,476,844 5.3

White 796,003 1.5

Black 657,383 10.3


41,753 12.0


376,137 47.6

Hispanic 781,854 47.0



South


Percent Change

TOTAL 10,736,708 12.6

White 4,406,271 7.2

Black 2,709,937 16.9


86,743 15.0


756,225 58.3

Hispanic 3,042,734 45.6



(West)


Percent Change

TOTAL 8,058,542 15.2

White 2,364,608 6.5

Black 420,271 13.3


169,716 9.1


1,434,530 35.7

Hispanic 3,490,443 39.2


Net Population Change Attributed to Non-White Population Growth , July 1, 1990 to

July 1, 2000 (United States)

Net Absolute Gain

Non-White Percent

United States

23,226,417 68

Northeast 954,323 100

Midwest 3,476,844 77

South 10,736,708 59

West 8,058,542 73


North Carolina Counties


North Carolina’s Regions

Mountain

Piedmont

CoastalPlain

Tidewater

MountainLeisure Zone

PiedmontTechnological

Zone

EasternAgricultural

Zone

Ocean LeisureZone


North Carolina Population Change by Region, Metropolitan Status, and

Race/ethnicity, July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000: (Tidewater)


Percent Change

TOTAL 89,861 13.40

White 53,998 10.81

Black 18,676 12.41


626 25.43


3,781 75.82

Hispanic 12,780 97.58



Race/ethnicity, July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000: (Coastal Plain)


Percent Change

TOTAL 138,393 9.93

White 55,553 6.75

Black 39,253 8.17


10,568 18.64


6,885 76.11

Hispanic 26,134 107.58



Race/ethnicity, July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000: (Piedmont)


Percent Change

TOTAL 658,618 18.08

White 421,869 15.17

Black 146,618 18.77


3,817 32.30


36,087 105.16

Hispanic 50,227 148.64



Race/ethnicity, July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000: (Mountain)


Percent Change

TOTAL 106,930 11.25

White 85,657 9.66

Black 7,422 15.90American Indian/Alaskan Native

1,884 22.49


2,892 92.90

Hispanic 9,075 143.82


Net Population Change Attributed to Non-White Population Growth , July 1, 1990 to

July 1, 2000: North Carolina

Net Absolute Gain

Non-White Percent

North Carolina 993,802 38

Tidewater 35,863 40

Coastal Plain 82,840 60

Piedmont 236,749 36

Mountain 21,273 20

Metropolitan Counties 265,229 37

Non-metropolitan Counties

111,496 40


Total Population Change in North Carolina for Hispanics, American Indian & Alaska Natives, and Asian & Pacific Islanders

July 1, 1990 - July 1, 2000

0

40000

80000

120000

160000

200000

Jul-90 Jul-91 Jul-92 Jul-93 Jul-94 Jul-95 Jul-96 Jul-97 Jul-98 Jul-99-00

Year

To

tal P

op

ula

tio

n Hispanic

American Indian &Alaska Native

Asian &PacificIslander


CherokeeClay

Graham

Swain

Macon

Jackson

Haywood

Madison

Buncombe

Transylvania

Polk

McDowell

RutherfordHenderson

Mitchell

Yancey

Avery

Watauga

Burke

Gaston

Catawba

Cleveland

Lincoln

Mecklenburg

IredellDavie

SurryAshe

Caldwell

Wilkes

Alleghany

Alexander

Yadkin

Davidson

Forsyth

Stokes

AnsonUnion

Cabarrus

Rowan

Stanly

Mon

tgom

ery

Randolph

Scotland

Rockingham

Guilford

Ala

man

ce

Caswell

Ora

ng

e

Robeson

Richmond

Chatham

Hoke

Moore

Lee

Cumberland

Harnett

Van

ce

Du

rham

Person

Gra

nvill

e

Franklin

Warren

Nash

Wake

Johnston

Sampson

Wilson

Wayne

Duplin

Columbus

Brunswick

BladenPender

New Hanover

Onslow

Jones

Carteret

Martin

Lenoir

Edgecombe

GreenePitt

Craven

Bertie

Halifax Hertford

Northampton

Pamlico

Washin

gton

BeaufortHyde

Pasquotank

Ch

ow

an

Gates

Perquimans

Camden

DareTyrrell

Currituck

NORTH CAROLINA

Source: US Bureau of Census; Office of Management and Budget, 1997.

County Status

Metropolitan (25)Nonmetropolitan (65)

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), 1997

Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News MSA

Rocky Mount MSA

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill MSA

Goldsboro MSA

Jacksonville MSA

Wilmington MSA

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA

Fayetteville MSA

Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point MSA

Hickory-Morganton MSA

Asheville MSA

Greenville MSA


Asheville, NC White 174,995 193,104 18,109 10.35%

Black 14,547 16,868 2,321 15.96%

Hispanic 1,276 3,146 1,870 146.55%

American Indian/ Alaskan Native

510 675 165 32.35%


807 1,578 771 95.54%

Total 192,135 215,371 23,236 12.09%

Counties included:1. Buncombe2. Madison

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Race/ Ethnicity 1990

Population 1999

Population

Absolute Change

Percent Change

July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000

MSA Population Change in North Carolina by Race/Ethnicity


Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock

Hill, NC-SCWhite 909,749 1,073,812 164,063 18.03%

Black 233,920 290,241 56,321 24.08%

Hispanic 10,857 27,639 16,782 154.57%


4,204 5,767 1,563 37.18%


11,566 24,075 12,509 108.15%

Total 1,170,296 1,421,534 251,238 21.47%

Counties included:

1. Cabarrus2. Gaston3. Lincoln4. Mecklenburg5. Rowan6. Union7. York (SC)



Population 1999

Population

Absolute Change

Percent Change

July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000

MSA Population Change in North Carolina by Race/Ethnicity (cont.)


Fayetteville, NC White 165,407 157,604 (7,803) -4.72%

Black 89,048 88,692 (356) -0.40%

Hispanic 13,486 26,317 12,831 95.14%


4,634 5,187 553 11.93%


6,114 10,198 4,084 66.80%

Total 278,689 287,998 9,309 3.34%

Counties included:Cumberland



Population 1999

Population

Absolute Change

Percent Change

July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000



Goldsboro, NC White 68,577 70,456 1,879 2.74%

Black 34,023 36,821 2,798 8.22%

Hispanic 1,363 2,931 1,568 115.04%


273 338 65 23.81%


851 1,512 661 77.67%

Total 105,087 112,058 6,971 6.63%

Counties included:Wayne



Population 1999

Population

Absolute Change

Percent Change

July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000



Fayetteville, NC White 165,407 157,604 (7,803) -4.72%

Black 89,048 88,692 (356) -0.40%

Hispanic 13,486 26,317 12,831 95.14%


4,634 5,187 553 11.93%


6,114 10,198 4,084 66.80%

Total 278,689 287,998 9,309 3.34%

Counties included:Cumberland



Population 1999

Population

Absolute Change

Percent Change

July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000



Greensboro-Winston Salem,

NCWhite 832,019 915,019 83,000 9.98%

Black 204,465 230,055 25,590 12.52%

Hispanic 7,911 18,527 10,616 134.19%


3,545 4,571 1,026 28.94%


7,034 13,313 6,279 89.27%

Total 1,054,974 1,181,485 126,511 11.99%

Counties included:

1. Alamance2. Davidson3. Davie4. Forsyth5. Guilford6. Randolph7. Stokes8. Yadkin



Population 1999

Population

Absolute Change

Percent Change

July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000



Greenville, NC White 70,945 80,378 9,433 13.30%

Black 36,275 43,850 7,575 20.88%

Hispanic 990 2,311 1,321 133.43%


222 314 92 41.44%


738 1,480 742 100.54%

Total 109,170 128,333 19,163 17.55%

Counties included:Pitt



Population 1999

Population

Absolute Change

Percent Change

July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000



Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC

White 267,726 292,581 24,855 9.28%

Black 21,559 25,028 3,469 16.09%

Hispanic 1,769 4,327 2,558 144.60%


531 693 162 30.51%


1,809 3,524 1,715 94.80%

Total 293,394 326,153 32,759 11.17%

Counties included:1. Alexander2. Burke3. Caldwell4. Catawba



Population 1999

Population

Absolute Change

Percent Change

July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000



Jacksonville, NC White 108,890 97,411 (11,479) -10.54%

Black 30,528 27,443 (3,085) -10.11%

Hispanic 8,103 13,897 5,794 71.50%


1,003 1,050 47 4.69%


3,239 5,079 1,840 56.81%

Total 151,763 144,880 (6,883) -4.54%

Counties included:Onslow



Population 1999

Population

Absolute Change

Percent Change

July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000




Race/ Ethnicity 1990 Population

1999 Population

Absolute

Change Percent

Change

July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000


Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC

White 628,522 780,374 151,852 24.16%

Black 209,630 265,012 55,382 26.42%

Hispanic 11,071 29,106 18,035 162.90%


2,308 3,375 1,067 46.23%


14,515 30,704 16,189 111.53%

Total 866,046 1,108,571 242,525 28.00%

Counties included:1. Chatham2. Durham3. Franklin4. Johnston5. Orange6. Wake


Rocky Mount, NC White 76,471 84,278 7,807 10.21%

Black 56,061 60,365 4,304 7.68%

Hispanic 863 1,773 910 105.45%


298 418 120 40.27%


296 587 291 98.31%

Total 133,989 147,421 13,432 10.02%

Counties included:1. Edgecombe2. Nash



Population 1999

Population

Absolute Change

Percent Change

July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000



Wilmington, NC White 136,087 172,266 36,179 26.59%

Black 33,680 44,142 10,462 31.06%

Hispanic 1,310 3,538 2,228 170.08%


683 1,038 355 51.98%


701 1,569 868 123.82%

Total 172,461 222,553 50,092 29.05%

Counties included:1. Brunswick2. New Hanover



Population 1999

Population

Absolute Change

Percent Change

July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000



Alamance 739 1,807 1,068 144.52%Alexander 184 464 280 152.17%Beaufort 197 409 212 107.61%Bladen 150 321 171 114.00%Brunswick 381 1,108 727 190.81%Buncombe 1,190 2,930 1,740 146.22%Burke 345 821 476 137.97%Cabarrus 484 1,351 867 179.13%Caldwell 316 736 420 132.91%Carteret 443 1,070 627 141.53%Catawba 924 2,306 1,382 149.57%Chatham 566 1,372 806 142.40%Cleveland 370 862 492 132.97%Craven 1,843 3,840 1,997 108.36%Davidson 602 1,459 857 142.36%

* Note: Only shows counties with a 1990 total population of 200 or more

County 1990

Population 1999

Population Absolute Change

Percent Change

Hispanic Population Change in North Carolina by County (>100% change)

July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000


Duplin 1,025 2,149 1,124 109.66%Durham 2,087 4,451 2,364 113.27%Forsyth 2,130 4,770 2,640 123.94%Franklin 290 703 413 142.41%Gaston 868 1,972 1,104 127.19%Granville 360 803 443 123.06%Guilford 2,933 6,597 3,664 124.92%Harnett 1,166 2,978 1,812 155.40%Haywood 240 591 351 146.25%Henderson 851 2,238 1,387 162.98%Hoke 218 537 319 146.33%Iredell 674 1,857 1,183 175.52%Johnston 1,280 3,615 2,335 182.42%Lee 807 1,846 1,039 128.75%Lincoln 572 1,541 969 169.41%

(cont.)


County 1990

Population 1999


Percent Change


July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000


(cont.)

Mecklenburg 6,868 17,651 10,783 157.00%Montgomery 557 1,167 610 109.52%Moore 470 1,222 752 160.00%Nash 614 1,347 733 119.38%New Hanover 929 2,430 1,501 161.57%Orange 1,297 3,266 1,969 151.81%Pasquotank 242 634 392 161.98%Pender 273 801 528 193.41%Person 223 529 306 137.22%Pitt 990 2,311 1,321 133.43%Randolph 737 1,853 1,116 151.42%Rockingham 611 1,383 772 126.35%Rowan 653 1,629 976 149.46%Rutherford 341 775 434 127.27%


County 1990

Population 1999


Percent Change


July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000



(cont.)

Sampson 734 1,617 883 120.30%Scotland 317 658 341 107.57%Stanly 310 710 400 129.03%Stokes 254 699 445 175.20%Surry 606 1,422 816 134.65%Union 676 1,974 1,298 192.01%Vance 274 585 311 113.50%Wake 5,551 15,699 10,148 182.81%Watauga 263 636 373 141.83%Wayne 1,363 2,931 1,568 115.04%Wilkes 359 845 486 135.38%Wilson 536 1,096 560 104.48%Yadkin 388 1,009 621 160.05%

Total 50,671 124,383 73,712 145.47%

County 1990

Population 1999


Percent Change


July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000


Cabarrus 376 841 465 123.67%Harnett 306 661 355 116.01%Henderson 288 609 321 111.46%Iredell 366 807 441 120.49%Lee 202 429 227 112.38%Mecklenburg 8,681 18,461 9,780 112.66%Nash 224 469 245 109.38%New Hanover 621 1,353 732 117.87%Pitt 738 1,480 742 100.54%Randolph 366 750 384 104.92%Rowan 445 911 466 104.72%Union 258 613 355 137.60%Wake 8,470 19,493 11,023 130.14%

Total 21,341 46,877 25,536 119.66%


July 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000

County1990

Population1999

PopulationAbsolute Change

Percent Change

Asian & Pacific Islander Population Change in Georgia by County (>100% change)


KEY DIVERSITY DEFINITIONS

CULTURAL COMPETENCE – embodies the knowledge, attitudes, skills, and protocols that allow an individual or organization to render services across cultural lines in an optimal manner.

The possession of cultural competence enables individuals/service providers to respond with respect and empathy to people of all races, classes, religions, and ethnic backgrounds that recognizes, affirms, and values the worth of individuals, families, and communities.


KEY DIVERSITY DEFINITIONS, (cont.)

RACE - In its biological sense, a category of people distinguished by such inherited physical characteristics as skin color, certain facial features, and quality and form of hair.

Behind the term is an extremely vague, misleading, and intractable folk concept about how people are to be categorized.



ETHNIC GROUP - Any category of people within a larger society who possess distinctive social or cultural traits, shared history, and a sense of their commonness, regardless of the group's size, power, race (the perception of certain common biological traits), or time of immigration.



DISCRIMINATION — Behavior that denies equal treatment to people because of their membership in some group—parallels the beliefs, feelings, fantasies, and motivations of prejudice.

Stereotypes, or generalizing beliefs about others; ethnocentrism, which judges others on the basis of one's own group standards; and racism, rooted in the notion of the biological inferiority of other groups, are all related to prejudice and often entwined with it. Ethnic slurs, such as wetback, whitey, Polack, etc. are usually expressions of prejudice.



OPPRESSION - Subjugation, persecution, and lacking freedom to move because of the application of unjust social, political, or economic forces.

The root word of oppression, press, suggests the meaning: "weighing heavily on, applying pressure to, and hence flattening and immobilizing." Oppression and oppressor are strong, often inflammatory, and sometimes overused or misused terms.



MINORITY STATUS - A minority is a group that differs in some respect from the mainstream population or a member of that group.

An ethnic minority group, for example, shares cultural attributes different from those of the dominant group in a society.



PREJUDICE - An attitude toward a category or group of people or toward individuals by virtue of their membership in the group.

Although this attitude may be favorable or positive, common usage connotes (and sociological usage denotes) an unfavorable or disparaging attitude, including bigotry and hatred.



REVERSE DISCRIMINATION - A form of discrimination against members of a dominant group (also called "reverse racism"). Normally the emphasis in the term, as used mainly by White people, is on the irony in a policy of discriminating against one group in order to rectify discrimination against members of another. Affirmation action is often interpreted as reverse discrimination.

The term has been a code word among those who criticize advances in civil rights that offer the same advantages to other groups that mainstream White people have long enjoyed. Thus, the user of the term is likely to blame minorities for anything that seems to hold back the user's economic advancement, at the same time blaming minorities for not pulling ahead by their own efforts.


WHY SHOULD CUSTOMER-FOCUSED ORGANIZATIONS BE CONCERNED

ABOUT DIVERSITY?PERSONAL IMPERATIVE:

Individuals who have learned to function in desegregated situations develop superior communications skills, tend to be better leaders, better coaches, better at influencing others, better at giving and receiving feedback.

SOCIAL IMPERATIVE:Changing complexion of the American labor force. We must learn to deal gracefully with more and more people who are not “like” us.

LEGAL IMPERATIVE:Discrimination lawsuits are expensive.

PROFIT IMPERATIVE:Heterogeneous work groups, when well managed, can out perform homogeneous groups in both quality and quantity. Treating women, minorities, and people with disabilities as a business imperative is the equivalent of a unique R&D product for which there is a huge demand. Diversity creates business/service opportunities. Failure to consider diversity creates economic/service disasters.


APPROACHES TO DIVERSITY

TRADITIONAL -

Assimilation / Affirmative Action (Legacy) / Melting Pot Model

UNDERSTANDING DIVERSITY -

Assumes that difficulty in organizations flows from a lack of understanding, so that the objective is to enhance your ability to accept, understand, and appreciate differences among clients.

MANAGING DIVERSITY -

An emerging supplement to the traditional option. The objective is to create an environment that fully taps the potential of all clients, in pursuit of your practice objectives, without blaming the client.


THE DIVERSITY/CULTURAL COMPETENCE PUZZLE --INDIVIDUALS

FOUR KEY BEHAVIORS:

1. SELF KNOWLEDGE -

Understanding how one’s own personal beliefs and values may affect others.

2. LEADERSHIP -

Take responsibility for championing diversity. Here you must be able to articulate the goals of diversity awareness training and the goals of valuing and managing diversity.

3. SUBJECT-MATTER UNDERSTANDING & EXPERTISE -

You must understand affirmative action and equal employment opportunities guidelines and how they differ from valuing and managing diversity.You must be fully aware of the provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1992 and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

3. SUBJECT-MATTER UNDERSTANDING & EXPERTISE (CONT)

You must know the demographic profiles of clients being served by your organization.You must understand the effects of public and/or private organization policies, systems, and practices on clients in the context of their ethnicity, gender, lifestyles, and cultural differences.

4. FACILITATION SKILLS -

You need to know how to communicate the exchange of ideas and knowledge in an organized, effective manner. You must know the clients of your organization and know how to design your service delivery based on their needs.


IF YOU PLAN TO WORK IN A CUSTOMER-FOCUSED ORGANIZATION IN THE 21ST

CENTURY, NOTE THE FOLLOWING TRENDS:

Every one belongs to a minority group

White men constitute less than half of the labor force

By 2000, one employee in four will come from a minority group

Asians will outnumber Jews by a margin of 2 to 1

Hispanics will lead blacks as the nation’s largest minority

Immigrants will become more important to U.S. population

growth than natural increase.

Challenge to Public/Private Sector Organizations: Target the diverse cultures, age groups, lifestyles, etc. with culturally competent/sensitive practices and messages


The family must be redefined. By 2010, married couples will no longer be a majority of households.

By 2000, more than half of all children will spend part of their lives in

single parent homes, and in poverty.

An increasing number of babies will be born to unmarried mothers.

By 2010, about one in three married couples with children will have

a stepchild or an adopted child.




Interracial marriage will darken the faces of the average family.

Most children will never know a time when their mothers did not

work outside the home.

Alternative family types will become more prevalent, including

unmarried heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, and

friends who live together.

Bottom Line: Organizations, Policymakers, etc. will need to be tactful when depicting 21st Century home life.


CENTURY, NOTE THE FOLLOWING TRENDS: (Cont’d)


Bottom Bottom Lines:

Social Service organizations that effectively manage client diversity and look for ways to adjust agency practices to client needs are the ones most likely to excel in the 21st Century.

An organization’s reputation for good human values will be as valuable an asset as the professional backgrounds of its personnel.



Diversity Growth, Cultural Competence, and Management: A Focus on the U.S. and North Carolina Walter...

Documents

Transcript of Diversity Growth, Cultural Competence, and Management: A Focus on the U.S. and North Carolina Walter...